Enough bullets are made every year to shoot everyone in the world twice, Oxfam says.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I shot 200 rounds last night. When do I get my merit badge for killing 25 people?

What's next? Realize you failed and outlaw lead, copper, and tin mines? Realize you can pick it up off the ground so we outlaw fire to smelt with? Or maybe it is okay to have a cozy family friendly soft wood fire, but those high heat capacity, iron melting, baby killing, fully automatic air injected coal fires? Gotta go, might make a bullet. Might save one child you know.


Better outlaw rocks and straight sticks, because by the time I run out of "bullets" i will be sure to be darn handy with bows, slings, and such.

Or, just outlaw force, mass, and gravity so I can't use those either.

Idjits. :rolleyes:
 
"Oxfam calculated it costs just $2.40 to take a human life in the Iraqi capital. The aid agency arrived at the figure by multiplying the black market cost of a bullet for an AK-47 rifle with the eight shots it said was the average to kill someone."

30 cents per cartidge sounds way overpriced to me, especially considering how much have been just laying around when the invasion ended.

Also, eight shots per kill would mean, at worst, nearly four hits per mag with AKs--there is now way those full-auto, shoot-from-the-hip insurgents could be hitting their targets that often. Or do they mean eight hits per kill?
 
I know of a sure fire way to get rid of all those extra bullets that are floating around.

Clearly what we need is more wide spread distribution of guns.

If everyone had a gun, and it took 8 rounds to kill someone, four people would have to pool their ammo ration to kill one person per year.

If you factor in weapons practice and ammunition expended learning how to shoot, you may have to have a thousand individuals pool their yearly ration just to have one soldier who has fired 500 rounds and is proficient.

and you would need another 500 to ensure that that soldier had a minimum of 250 rounds on his person for use in combat.

If you want a standing army of 100,000, you'd need the ammo ration for over 37.5 million individuals.

If you wanted to train and arm the US military (assume 1.5 million troops 500 rounds per individual expended in practice per year, with 250 rounds ammo for cary) you'd need a population of 562.5 million to have enough ammo.

the us only has a bit more than half of that IIRC

according to this site

http://proliberty.com/observer/20060204.htm

the us alone has expended 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition in IRAQ thus far.

What we really need is more ammo so that the aproximatly 44 million civilian gun owners in the us can have something to shoot.

In order to see to it that the 44 million gun owners in the US (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html)

had at least 500 rounds of experiance and 250 rounds on hand the us would need a population of 16.5 billion.

Check out this article on actuall ammo consumption vs kill in IRAQ

From the February 2006 Idaho Observer:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The high cost of bullets


Below is a British story that illuminates an insight into the Iraq war that should be sobering. Following are a few details from a reliable source that explain why the cost of bullets is much greater than their wholesale price.



The Daily Reckoning

London, England

Saturday, February 11, 2006

While India makes money, the American Empire squanders it...on bullets. Imperial troops are trying to kill "insurgents" in Iraq. Who these insurgents are or why the United States would want them dead, are matters left for future historians or surrealist artists. We just note that America’s war against Iraqi "insurgents," whoever they may be, has gone on for longer than its involvement in World War II. And now, the running cost is rising to equal the expense of the Vietnam War—when as many as 500,000 U.S. troops were on the ground in Southeast Asia. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the treasury under President Reagan, recently tried to figure out the math:

The official estimated number of insurgents in Iraq has been 20,000. According to reports of the Government Accounting Office (GAO), by September the U.S. military had used up 1.8 billion rounds of small caliber ammunition in Iraq.

That means "U.S. troops have fired 90,000 rounds at each insurgent,’ states Roberts matter-of-factly. ‘Very few have been hit. If 2,000 insurgents have been killed, each death required 900,000 rounds of ammunition."

"Think about that," says Roberts. "Hollowed-out U.S. industry cannot produce enough ammunition to defeat a 20,000-man insurgency."

We remember the line from "Apocalypse Now": "What ya shootin’ at, soldier?"

The trouble is, contractors can’t make enough bullets to keep up. The Pentagon has had to buy bullets from overseas.

Note: A reliable source confirmed that "surplus" stocks of .223 (M-16) and 7.6 2x 54 (.308 for machine guns and sniper rifles) and 7.62 x 39 (AK-47) are drying up for private purchases in the U.S.

The tremendous expenditure of ammo in Iraq is due to a "spray and pray" policy governed by the fact that, of U.S. 100 soldiers, 95 are barely trained infantry cannon fodder and only five are well-trained professionals. The "insurgents" are experienced fighters familiar with their surroundings. In other words, the 95 spray and pray to keep the "insurgents’" heads down while the five assess the situation and attempt to accomplish a military objective.

The U.S. uses M-16s. The U.S. has provisioned the Iraq military and Iraq police with AK-47s purchased from Russia; their ammo is supplied by China.

About 75 percent of the ammo expended in Iraq (both sides) is supplied by China.



Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Subscribe
Our Writers
Corrections and Clarifications

Hari Heath

Vaccination Liberation - vaclib.org












--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307
Email: [email protected]
Web:
http://idaho-observer.com
http://proliberty.com/observer/
 
I just found another related snippet that claims 250,000 rounds expended per insurgent.

the 1.8 billion rounds is not cumulative, it is PER YEAR being expended just by our side in IRAQ.


http://www.gnn.tv/H05093

Summary:
A US government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.

Estimating how many bullets US forces have expended for every insurgent killed is not a simple or precisely scientific matter.

John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO’s figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005

“If they don’t do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let’s round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating.”

[Posted By Butt]
By Andrew Buncombe
Republished from The London Independent
US forced to import bullets from Israel
US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan – an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed – that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.

“The Department of Defense’s increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army’s transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force – which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 – and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said the report by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

Estimating how many bullets US forces have expended for every insurgent killed is not a simple or precisely scientific matter. The former head of US forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, famously claimed that his forces “don’t do body counts”.

But senior officers have recently claimed “great successes” in Iraq, based on counting the bodies of insurgents killed. Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, the top US military spokesman in Iraq, said 1,534 insurgents had been seized or killed in a recent operation in the west of Baghdad. Other estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush’s “war on terror”.

John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO’s figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005. “How many evil-doers have we sent to their maker using bullets rather than bombs? I don’t know,” he said.

“If they don’t do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let’s round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating.”

Pointing out that officials say many of these bullets have been used for training purposes, he said: “What are you training for? To kill insurgents.”

Kathy Kelly, a spokeswoman for the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, said Mr Bush believed security for the American people could come only from the use of force. Truer security would be achieved if the US developed fairer relations with other countries and was not involved in the occupation of Iraq. The President, said Ms Kelly, should learn from Israel’s experience of “occupying the Palestinians” rather than buying its ammunition.

The GAO report notes that the three government-owned, contractor-operated plants that produce small- and medium-calibre ammunition were built in 1941.

Though millions of dollars have been spent on upgrading the facilities, they remain unable to meet current munitions needs in their current state. “The government-owned plant producing small-calibre ammunition cannot meet the increased requirements, even with modernisation efforts,” said the report.

“Also, commercial producers within the national technology and industrial base have not had the capacity to meet these requirements. As a result, the Department of Defense had to rely at least in part on foreign commercial producers to meet its small-calibre ammunition needs.”

A report in Manufacturing & Technology News said that the Pentagon eventually found two producers capable of meeting its requirements. One of these was the US firm Olin-Winchester.

The other was Israel Military Industries, an Israeli ammunition manufacturer linked to the Israeli government, which produces the bulk of weapons and ordnance for the Israeli Defence Force.

The Pentagon reportedly bought 313 million rounds of 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50-calibre ammunition last year and paid $10m (about £5.5m) more than it would have cost for it to produce the ammunition at its own facilities.

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan – an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed – that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.

“The Department of Defense’s increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army’s transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force – which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 – and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said the report by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

Estimating how many bullets US forces have expended for every insurgent killed is not a simple or precisely scientific matter. The former head of US forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, famously claimed that his forces “don’t do body counts”.

But senior officers have recently claimed “great successes” in Iraq, based on counting the bodies of insurgents killed. Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, the top US military spokesman in Iraq, said 1,534 insurgents had been seized or killed in a recent operation in the west of Baghdad. Other estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush’s “war on terror”.

John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO’s figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005. “How many evil-doers have we sent to their maker using bullets rather than bombs? I don’t know,” he said.

“If they don’t do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let’s round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating.”

Pointing out that officials say many of these bullets have been used for training purposes, he said: “What are you training for? To kill insurgents.”

Kathy Kelly, a spokeswoman for the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, said Mr Bush believed security for the American people could come only from the use of force. Truer security would be achieved if the US developed fairer relations with other countries and was not involved in the occupation of Iraq. The President, said Ms Kelly, should learn from Israel’s experience of “occupying the Palestinians” rather than buying its ammunition.

The GAO report notes that the three government-owned, contractor-operated plants that produce small- and medium-calibre ammunition were built in 1941.

Though millions of dollars have been spent on upgrading the facilities, they remain unable to meet current munitions needs in their current state. “The government-owned plant producing small-calibre ammunition cannot meet the increased requirements, even with modernisation efforts,” said the report.

“Also, commercial producers within the national technology and industrial base have not had the capacity to meet these requirements. As a result, the Department of Defense had to rely at least in part on foreign commercial producers to meet its small-calibre ammunition needs.”

A report in Manufacturing & Technology News said that the Pentagon eventually found two producers capable of meeting its requirements. One of these was the US firm Olin-Winchester.

The other was Israel Military Industries, an Israeli ammunition manufacturer linked to the Israeli government, which produces the bulk of weapons and ordnance for the Israeli Defence Force.

The Pentagon reportedly bought 313 million rounds of 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50-calibre ammunition last year and paid $10m (about £5.5m) more than it would have cost for it to produce the ammunition at its own facilities.

Sorry for such long posts.
 
After reading these news snipets, it's amazing how stupid the antis can be!

And let's not forget that many of those "evil" bullets helped liberate 50,000,000 innocent civilians from an evil tyranical dictator!

I suppose by the logic of the antis, it's better to let an evil Hitler-esq dictatore slaughter his own people through tyrannical rule than to interfere.

And thanks to earlier posters for pointing out all of the flawed logic in the news articles about black markets and the math.

Very funny...
 
That Oxfam statement bears trivialisation.
What does regulation of a legal trade do to the black market in the
same good? Oxfam says the black market is out of control due to
a lack of restriction on the legal trade? Legitimate dealers who try
to abide by the regulations may be surprised that they are
under-regulated.

Oxfam claims there are two bullets made each year for every person ,
enough to kill every person on the planet twize.
Then they claim it takes eight bullets to kill an Iraqi.
14 billion bullets divided by eight is enough bullets to kill 1.75 billion
people once.
The cost of eight black market bullets in Iraq is $2.40?
What was the cost of a Rawandam life taken by a thug with a
machete? This kind of rhetoric trivializes the real problem: how to
deal with thug governments.

Will Rebecca Peter's plan of restricting Amercan hunters
to single shot rifles with a maximum range of 100 meters
stop a third world warlord from supplying guns and drugs
to child-soldiers? Not really.

Most excellent points.
 
I have over a 1000 rounds ( I know, that is nothing compared to most of y'all.) of ammo in my closet and have not been shot once.


Though I did have a box of .22 fall off a shelf and hit me in the head. Does that count?
 
I agree!

They're sending too much ammo to the middle east! Too many people, including children, are dying!

Simple solution? Start sending it to the USA like they used to, so I can get dirt cheap 7.62x39 again!
 
What taliv said. Subtract 8 (really???) X the number of people shot and the remainder are for non-lethal pursuits. We know the majority of the world's population has not been shot. :rolleyes:
 
Enough bullets are made every year to shoot everyone in the world twice
What a goofy statement.

Might as well say "Enough pudding made every year to drown everyone in the world twice".

Obviously the vast majority of those "bullets" (I believe they mean cartridges) are NOT KILLING ANYONE.

But yeah, I know, its not about saving lives its about control.
 
It would be interesting to see how much of a share Wolf's steel cased junk claims in this figure.

Certainly 7.62 or 5.45 isn't that expensive over there.
 
All I can say is, if price is a function of supply and demand, and since prices here for most ammo calibers are so high, there obviously isn't enough supply to satisfy our demand. I therefore demand that ammo production be doubled!

:neener:
 
This is just the kind of irrational emotionalism the UN and anti-gunners are famous for.

Construct a horrifying hypothetical, then propose banning something.

There are enough oranges grown in Florida each year to kill the entire adult US population if they were lodged in people's tracheas. Let's ban oranges.
 
Most of those "bullets" are obviously being produced, bought, sold, and used to kill people by governments, not private individuals.
Thanks to okie for pointing out a true fact which will never be mentioned in a UN report.
 
Using this logic, I saved 10 or more of you guys at the Carbine Match Saturday. You can send me ammo in appreciation.

Oxfam is another group that shoudl be watched closely.

Did anyone ask why a (IIRC) famine aid agency is counting cartridges?
 
Good thing they didn't include reloaders... we use some parts over and over!

Plus I can afford to make 2-5x the amount of ammo I could buy.

I bet the bullets per kill would go wwaaayyyy down once they factored BENCHREST shooters into the equation. :neener:

With all that brass on the ground in Iraq you think I could get some KILLER deals (no pun intended) on once fired USGI 5.56mm on e-bay... someone get those Iraqi's to work picking up brass and post it on e-bay. :D And all the .50BMG laying around!!!! Iraq is a gold.. BRASS mine!!!! :D
 
Up to 14 billion bullets are made globally every year, enough to shoot every person on the planet twice, aid agency Oxfam said on Thursday in a report urging tougher controls on small arms.

How many knives are made globally each year? How many baseball bats, crowbars, chains are made every year? How drain cleaner and other toxic chemicals that could used in poisonings are made each year? What Libs should be asking is how many violent criminals are being released from prisons each year and how many violent offenders are given probation rather than imprisonment each year. Libs keep the focus on the tools that are used to kill rather than addressing those that actually do the dead.

Red flag! They've tipped their hand again. RKBA is constitutionally protected. Ammunition isn't.

Actually ammo is protected. There has been legal precedent established based on past attempts to ban ammo that recognizes that a ban on ammo is effectively a ban of firearms. Libs seem like they are trying to circumvent this ruling by insisting on trade regulations that would only drive the price of ammo through the roof and bans on specific rounds deemed (by them) to be too dangerous for the average citizen. All I can say is thank God I started reloading this last year.
 
Ammo

Quote:

>Actually ammo is protected. There has been legal precedent established based on past attempts to ban ammo that recognizes that a ban on ammo is effectively a ban of firearms.<
***********************

Until they pull the "Cop Killer Bullet" trump card. But the ruling is just that. A court ruling that can be overturned at some point. All it takes is 5 outta 9 to do it.
 
"to shoot everyone in the world twice"

:neener:
Because some people need to be shot more than once.
:neener:

Especially if you're aiming for the pinky toes.:p
 
Until they pull the "Cop Killer Bullet" trump card. But the ruling is just that. A court ruling that can be overturned at some point. All it takes is 5 outta 9 to do it.

You're absolutely correct it "can" be overturned. However, to do so would mean violating the legal doctrine of Stare Decisis. The problem with doing this is that libs vehamently cling to the doctrine of Stare Decisis as protection against future judges overturning decisions made by their activist judges like Roe v Wade and the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling. If the left allows Stare Decisis to be violated to acheive their anti-gun agenda they would loose their most powerful judicial weapon.

My opinion is that from a practical standpoint Stare Decisis is needed to make judicial decision hold any value what so ever. Also Stare Decisis is a tool that opperates as a check and balance of judicial power. Taking away Stare Decisis would basically mean that any judge can use any line of reasoning to make any ruling they want regarless of past precedent which would extend way to much power to judges.
 
Anyone else immediately think "But out of those 90,000 rounds expended per insurgent, how many were used in training?" And ultimately, which is cheaper: a few cases of .223, or the training, social, and economic costs of losing a soldier?
 
Only 14 billion? That number seems a bit low to me. I would think that a great gun owner state such as Texas has that many rounds of .22LR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top